"Its deeply patronizing to hear gate-keeping developers discuss when is 'no-code' acceptable..." I think we're mostly emotionally responding to the patronizing

"Its deeply patronizing to hear gate-keeping developers discuss when is 'no-code' acceptable..." I think we're mostly emotionally responding to the patronizing implication in these sorts of articles that no-code is the future and what we do is so easy that it's going to be replaced by a pretty GUI and some colored bubbles. Does anyone deny these tools have some uses? They sure do. But they also manifestly have some serious weaknesses, as discussed in the article, and I'd add others beside. They may get incrementally more useful in the near future, maybe even build a few billion-dollar companies, but the odds of them displacing any conventional code in the near future is basically zero; no matter how successful they may become, the net amount of "yes-code" programming work in the world is still going to go up. I don't think a factory line worker should get a Real Language... I think it's that credulous journalists or companies with a marketing department ought to stop writing these "oh man, software engineers ought to watch out!" articles and instead focus on the actual capabilities and deliverables... which, frankly, end up obscured, oversold, and outright ignored when you try to pitch them as replacements for conventional software. Any startup in this space, I'd advise against positioning yourself that way... you're in for some angry customers.